Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid rebuttals ---PSR--- Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2025 10:07:40 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 127 Message-ID: References: <920b573567d204a5c792425b09097d79ee098fa5@i2pn2.org> <4453bc0c1141c540852ea2223a7fedefc93f564c@i2pn2.org> <27b6da57f540cd39d2918411d8c94789678e3f45@i2pn2.org> <24c66a3611456f6a6969dc132fd8a227b26cbcbd@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2025 10:07:41 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1fe0f48013a0a36293531e83ac0dcbef"; logging-data="697205"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/V1x5DmlHGVBqkiTtJBrze" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:jMo5TWlhvegywve/q+gmhK+S+Cc= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: nl, en-GB Bytes: 7573 Op 09.mrt.2025 om 00:41 schreef olcott: > On 3/8/2025 5:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 3/8/25 9:09 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 3/8/2025 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2025-03-07 15:11:53 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 3/7/2025 2:58 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> Op 07.mrt.2025 om 03:31 schreef olcott: >>>>>>> On 3/6/2025 6:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/6/25 3:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 3/6/2025 3:20 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Am Wed, 05 Mar 2025 22:03:39 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 9:57 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 10:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 9:31 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 10:17 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 7:10 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you know that what you're working on has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do with the halting problem, but you don't care. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words I WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY BULLSHIT DEFLECTION. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have proven that you know these things pretty well SO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> QUIT THE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SHIT! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You want people to accept that HHH(DD) does in fact report >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> changing the code of HHH to an unconditional simulator and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> running >>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DD) will not halt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own >>>>>>>>>>>>> "ret" >>>>>>>>>>>>> instruction and terminate normally. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional >>>>>>>>>>>> simulator and subsequently running HHH(DD) does not halt, >>>>>>>>>>>> which you >>>>>>>>>>>> previously agreed is correct: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2025 1:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>   > On 2/22/2025 11:10 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>   >> On 2/22/2025 11:43 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>   >>> The first point is DD correctly simulated by HHH >>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>   >>> terminate normally by reaching its own "return" >>>>>>>>>>>> instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>   >> >>>>>>>>>>>>   >> In other words, if the code of HHH is replaced with an >>>>>>>>>>>>   >> unconditional simulator then it can be shown that DD is >>>>>>>>>>>>   >> non-halting and therefore HHH(DD)==0 is correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>   >> >>>>>>>>>>>>   > Wow finally someone that totally gets it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you disagree, explain why this is different. >>>>>>>>>>>> In particular, give an example where X correctly emulated by >>>>>>>>>>>> Y is >>>>>>>>>>>> different from replacing the code of Y with an unconditional >>>>>>>>>>>> simulator >>>>>>>>>>>> and subsequently running Y(X). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I may not have enough time left to change the subject and >>>>>>>>>>> endlessly go >>>>>>>>>>> through anything but the exact point. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You used to have enough time. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is before the CAR T cell manufacturing process failed twice. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Which really means you need to abandon your fraudulent methods >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _DD() >>>>>>> [00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping >>>>>>> [00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping >>>>>>> [00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local >>>>>>> [00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD >>>>>>> [0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD) >>>>>>> [00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04 >>>>>>> [00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax >>>>>>> [00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00 >>>>>>> [0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f >>>>>>> [0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d >>>>>>> [0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04] >>>>>>> [00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp >>>>>>> [00002154] 5d         pop ebp >>>>>>> [00002155] c3         ret >>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly >>>>>>> reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally >>>>>>> because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No such HHH exists. >>>>>> The programmer of HHH has the following options when HHH reaches >>>>>> the call to HHH: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) It just follows the call and starts simulating the code of HHH. >>>>>> This might eventually lead to infinite recursion. So, no correct >>>>>> simulation. >>>>>> >>>>> The code proves otherwise >>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c >>>> >>>> A program does not prove. In particular, it does not prove that no >>>> different program exists. >>>> >>> >>> The source code 100% perfectly proves exactly what it >>> actually does. Whenever anyone disagrees with what it >>> actually does (as most people here have tried to get >>> away with) they are necessarily incorrect. >>> >> >> Which is that HHH will look at memory not defined to be part of its >> input, and thus HHH is not the pure function you have agreed it must be. >> > > > THIS IS A SEMANTIC TAUTOLOGY AGREE OR STFU !!! > DD correctly emulated by HHH  cannot possibly > reach its own final state and terminate normally. > Indeed, hat is the only conclusion: HHH correctly reports that it cannot possibly simulate this input correctly up to the end. An end that has been proven to be there by direct execution and world-class simulators.